Skin Tones in pre 1960 Black and White

I was looking for a similar effect some time ago. I'm not sure if it's the same thing the op's talking about, though. I wanted to produce those radiant skin tones I saw in some of Avedon's pictures. I figured that it can achieved by soft lighting and very high contrast in the upper part of the curve (where the skintones are). I got pretty much what I wanted by underexposing Ilford FP4+ by one to two stops and (over)developing it in Dektol 1+7 for 14 and a half minutes at 20 degrees C (68F). So I think it's about underexposing and overdeveloping low-speed film. I normally don't develop film in Dektol, but I needed a very active developer and decided to give it a try. It worked out very well.

Here is a sample. The only real print I have at hand is too large to scan, but here's a test scrap and a scan from the contact sheet. The highlight on the cheek is not as blown out on the print as it is in the scan, but I hope you get the idea.

Hopefully this is kind of what you were talking about.

Johannes

I was thinking about this thread last night, namely that the OP stated a number of times the question of why a certain highlight softness/glow/bleed happened on Type 55 and not PX. And I was thinking Type 55 had a tonal antiqueness, for lack of better words, sure, but it was not THAT old school.

So I then wondered, what was the Type 55 shot at and what was the plus-x shot at, b/c I'd say PX is about two stops faster than Type 55. Then I wondered if and where that exposure compensation was made between the two. If it was made via F stop, then that right there would explain the differences in what was seen on each. Type 55 wide open, vs PX two clicks down, optic characteristics will have way more say than emulsion characteristics. Now if the exposure was compensated for via shutter speed than this lengthy post was in vain.

Anyway, just crossed my mind, as I didn't believe it'd been mentioned, unless I skimmed over it.

GraemeMitchell said:

I was thinking about this thread last night, namely that the OP stated a number of times the question of why a certain highlight softness/glow/bleed happened on Type 55 and not PX. And I was thinking Type 55 had a tonal antiqueness, for lack of better words, sure, but it was not THAT old school.

So I then wondered, what was the Type 55 shot at and what was the plus-x shot at, b/c I'd say PX is about two stops faster than Type 55. Then I wondered if and where that exposure compensation was made between the two. If it was made via F stop, then that right there would explain the differences in what was seen on each. Type 55 wide open, vs PX two clicks down, optic characteristics will have way more say than emulsion characteristics. Now if the exposure was compensated for via shutter speed than this lengthy post was in vain.

Anyway, just crossed my mind, as I didn't believe it'd been mentioned, unless I skimmed over it.

Click to expand...

It's not anything to do with the Aperture I was shooting at - Type 55 always does this for me and PX never does. I am pretty good at my BW process and can produce negatives of any contrast that I like for just about any film I shoot at - What I said was that the PX was developed to a similar CI to the Type 55.

RB

For me, the best skin tones always came using Ilford FP-4, EI 64, souped in D23. It gave an almost three dimension quality to such images.

rwboyer said:

It's not anything to do with the Aperture I was shooting at - Type 55 always does this for me and PX never does. I am pretty good at my BW process and can produce negatives of any contrast that I like for just about any film I shoot at - What I said was that the PX was developed to a similar CI to the Type 55.

RB

Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to CI, nor to your process in general, but rather to that specific picture you offered as a sample and how it was shot. B/c I'd expect a noticeable difference in highlights between shooting at say f4 and f5.6 1/2, especially that tight in. B/c wide open, highlights do special things. Again, just talking highlight tonal transitions and bleed, not CI. B/c while related, yes, they're not determinant of each other.

Regardless, you're only going to get something similar on modern emulsions by the use of the right glass and the right light. That's the bottom line imho.

greybeard said:

By the way, 666 is the very high temperature (infernal) version of panthermic.

Yep. And the only known formula based on burning brimstone...

Click to expand...

The burning brimstone is to make the sulfite needed in the formula, no doubt...

The burning brimstone is to make the sulfite needed in the formula, no doubt...

Exactly. But the processing time is lo-o-o-o-o-ng. Seems like it takes an eternity.

If you want to try a film with no anti-halation layer, try Chinese Lucky 135 (and perhaps 120). The photos all have an odd glow around the highlights, which for some scenes is very beautiful.

One more thing. I'm starting to think that the enlarger lens also played a large part in all of this. When I started out I had an ancient Wollensak and it delivered a very different (vintage) look than my blazing sharp, multicoated, high-contrast Rodenstock. I still have it somewhere, but of course I don't have a darkroom at the moment...

Are any of these examples of what you are looking for?



All were shot on Tri-X or Agfa 100, developed in Xtol undiluted, and printed on a cold light head, most likely on Zone VI brilliant paper except for the little girl, which i used Forte grade 2 semi matt warm tone. Mazzy Star (the girl in the checkered dress) might be on something else but can't remember. Nothing special in the printing or print dev.